I thought my comments would not be as useful as those who work within government. so I did not comment. Now that it’s extended-thank you Steve, i didnt know, i will read Schedule F and comment.
The Harding administration was the first to deal with the end of the spoils system. The crisis of 1907 had finally convinced enough people that the US needed a robust Federal Government.
Back then we had 100 odd million people living in the US and roughly 1.8 Billion people living on the planet.
Worth noting the global population figure stayed roughly the same for the first half of the 20th Century - bad government has consequences.
That the Trump admin, to the delight of apparently many oligarchs and MAGA types is reverting back to the spoils system with all that entails, some, but not all of which you note, is terrifying given that we now have 330 Million people (less however many non criminal immigrants Trump has deported to various concentration camps around the world) in the country and more than 8 Billion people on the planet all depending on the reasonably smooth operation of our commercial system - a system that requires government to make it run well.
Like Musk & DOGE, the proposed rule doesn't fit the actual needs of most of the federal workforce, as it seems to be written by people with a bird's eye view of gov't operations.
Example: Hiring a Social Security Administration employee to review disability claims that were denied at the first step (involving thousands of claims!). Pool consists of front-line SSA employees at field offices and state employees who do the initial claims review on behalf of SSA. The hiring manager seeks someone who understands Social Security law, regulations, and its operating instructions in order to move claims through the process expeditiously and accurately. Where do 'patriotism' and 'promoting the presidential agenda' fit in evaluating a new hire for this job? They don't.
My views on Senior Executive Service candidates are quite different. The selection of SES candidates hasn't been competitive for decades. Usual practice has been for the SES incumbent to choose his/her replacement by sending that one person to SES school & get certified as a potential SES employee. Next, the incumbent tells their political appointee boss of their upcoming retirement and presents the sole certified SES candidate as a fait accompli. Appointee typically is overwhelmed by other issues; accepting the candidate is the path of least resistance.
This system guarantees an ossified bureaucracy, as career success involves replicating the SES incumbent's approach.
As SES personnel are the main point of contact for political appointees, it's an unspoken but understood rule that an SES person must choose a side: R or D. Today, those who are shocked that SES employees are moved out of HQ operations to the hinterlands when a new administration comes in shouldn't be. George W's administration may not have moved many SES people, but the Obama administration did. I expect the Clinton administration did likewise.
So Trump’s dismantling of the SES school was a good move. It opens up SES opportunities to more people.
And asking an SES candidate if they support the President's agency might not be as bad as it seems. It informs the potential SES employees that they're choosing a side, which reflects the reality of govermental operations.
But below the rank of an SES, I don't see much benefit to loyalty statements, rather, it increases the paperwork burden in an already creaky system.
As a retired civil servant with 20 years at DOL in a policy position, I can vouch for this - and did so in a lengthy comment on the Proposed Rule "Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service" after reading about it in the May 9 post at https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/here-is-a-specific-thing-you-can. Almost 33,000 people commented on that rule, and the comment period was extended to June 7. I encourage you to add yours, if you have not already done so: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/23/2025-09356/improving-performance-accountability-and-responsiveness-in-the-civil-service.
Thanks - it is so hard to communicate the scale and detail of what is going on so appreciate you adding your voice
I just skimmed Schedule F. It reads like a punishment.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/23/2025-06904/improving-performance-accountability-and-responsiveness-in-the-civil-service
I thought my comments would not be as useful as those who work within government. so I did not comment. Now that it’s extended-thank you Steve, i didnt know, i will read Schedule F and comment.
Thanks for joining the protest. I hope it will take them four years to review all of our comments!
The Harding administration was the first to deal with the end of the spoils system. The crisis of 1907 had finally convinced enough people that the US needed a robust Federal Government.
Back then we had 100 odd million people living in the US and roughly 1.8 Billion people living on the planet.
Worth noting the global population figure stayed roughly the same for the first half of the 20th Century - bad government has consequences.
That the Trump admin, to the delight of apparently many oligarchs and MAGA types is reverting back to the spoils system with all that entails, some, but not all of which you note, is terrifying given that we now have 330 Million people (less however many non criminal immigrants Trump has deported to various concentration camps around the world) in the country and more than 8 Billion people on the planet all depending on the reasonably smooth operation of our commercial system - a system that requires government to make it run well.
This is madness.
Like Musk & DOGE, the proposed rule doesn't fit the actual needs of most of the federal workforce, as it seems to be written by people with a bird's eye view of gov't operations.
Example: Hiring a Social Security Administration employee to review disability claims that were denied at the first step (involving thousands of claims!). Pool consists of front-line SSA employees at field offices and state employees who do the initial claims review on behalf of SSA. The hiring manager seeks someone who understands Social Security law, regulations, and its operating instructions in order to move claims through the process expeditiously and accurately. Where do 'patriotism' and 'promoting the presidential agenda' fit in evaluating a new hire for this job? They don't.
My views on Senior Executive Service candidates are quite different. The selection of SES candidates hasn't been competitive for decades. Usual practice has been for the SES incumbent to choose his/her replacement by sending that one person to SES school & get certified as a potential SES employee. Next, the incumbent tells their political appointee boss of their upcoming retirement and presents the sole certified SES candidate as a fait accompli. Appointee typically is overwhelmed by other issues; accepting the candidate is the path of least resistance.
This system guarantees an ossified bureaucracy, as career success involves replicating the SES incumbent's approach.
As SES personnel are the main point of contact for political appointees, it's an unspoken but understood rule that an SES person must choose a side: R or D. Today, those who are shocked that SES employees are moved out of HQ operations to the hinterlands when a new administration comes in shouldn't be. George W's administration may not have moved many SES people, but the Obama administration did. I expect the Clinton administration did likewise.
So Trump’s dismantling of the SES school was a good move. It opens up SES opportunities to more people.
And asking an SES candidate if they support the President's agency might not be as bad as it seems. It informs the potential SES employees that they're choosing a side, which reflects the reality of govermental operations.
But below the rank of an SES, I don't see much benefit to loyalty statements, rather, it increases the paperwork burden in an already creaky system.
Does any retired civil servant not fear that a retroactive recension of their contributions to TSP isn't on the horizon?